Training & Nutrition - Hill training question

First off, I think I may be in danger of becoming addicted to climbs!!! I don't know why but I absolutely hate flat rides and actually plan my routes based on what streets have good upgrades!!!

Anyway, I'm wondering what ride style is helping me more with weight loss.
Right now, if I think I can tackle a hill without stopping, I keep it in a tougher gear and just burn baby burn. However, if I'm going up larger hills that I know I'm going to have to stop a few times, I shift to an easier gear. Obviously, the former kicks my heart rate up higher but I need longer recovery times before I can start going again whereas the latter, I bike longer but it's not as hard of a workout.

So my question is, from a weight loss perspective, which style helps me more?

Longer duration, IMO.

I'd say a lower cadence would be more straining on the legs, and therefore be more likely to develop muscle. Increased muscle mass is key to increased metabolic rate, while active and at rest.

Watch you don't blow your knees out, though.
Grinding away with ultra high forces sounds like a good recipe for a short cycling career.

A metered climbing style will benefit you more in the long run than short sprints up hills. The reason for this is that the short efforts burn quick energy rather than your longer burning energy sources like fat and carbs. Stick with longer efforts with HIGHER cadence, not lower with high gears which is bad for your knees. Watch some old Tour footage of Lance who pioneered the high cadence method of climbing hills.

A metered climbing style will benefit you more in the long run than short sprints up hills. The reason for this is that the short efforts burn quick energy rather than your longer burning energy sources like fat and carbs. Stick with longer efforts with HIGHER cadence, not lower with high gears which is bad for your knees. Watch some old Tour footage of Lance who pioneered the high cadence method of climbing hills.

Lance pioneered that style? Odd, I could swear Merckx and Indurain rode smaller gears in the mountains.

So my question is, from a weight loss perspective, which style helps me more?

I say just go out and rip it up, keep doing what your doing, which obviously is fun for you. I think longer rides at higher cadence will help more with the weight loss, but I wouldn't stop the short intense stuff though.

Thanx for the replies. I'll certainly heed the warnings about my knees. I never really thought about it since all the burn is in my thighs & calves but I'll keep it in mind none-the-less.

Yeah man I used to be a slow cadence climber. My legs never got stronger like I assumed they would, and eventually my knees began to hurt. You can climb in a slow cadence if you want, but eventually it will FORCE you to climb with a lower gear in a faster cadence (which is more fun/less painful/quicker anyways.)

Lance pioneered that style? Odd, I could swear Merckx and Indurain rode smaller gears in the mountains.

Charly Gaul and Federico Bahamontes before them... (not sure about Indurain... but Luis Ocana for sure...)
and Coppi before them...
and... there were plenty of greats who also rode a larger gear...
you use what the body does best... sometimes its spinning sometimes its not

For weight loss, the more riding you can do, the better. Even though you ride slower in order to go longer, you burn more calories total. I.e. you can do an hour at 750 Cal/hr and you are done, while at 500 Cal/hr you can ride for three hours. Even with the food you'll need on a three hour ride (~250 Cal) you still burn more Calories over all.

As far as climbing technique, try different cadences. You'll figure out what works for you on different kinds of climbs. Don't plan to stop on climbs. You can get up harder climbs than you think.

So my question is, from a weight loss perspective, which style helps me more?From a weight loss perspective - your climbing techniques make no difference. (assuming your goal is to lose weight)

No single exercise, nor type of exercise-session has a lock on promoting weight-loss. Magazine articles and faddish fitness equipment articles do a good job in hoodwinking and confusing the public.

Bottom line - the systematic and repeated application of alternate forms and intensities of exercise that promote the diverse development of all types of muscle fibers and all metabolic pathways responsible for expending calories - which ultimately results in weight loss.

With respect to the context of long term weight loss resulting from particular cycling styles - again, its not that one method is better or worse - the best answer understands the need to build or maintain both strength and stamina - not one or the other......

Damn, this sure was a good answer..... (15 kcals used)

From a weight loss perspective - your climbing techniques make no difference. (assuming your goal is to lose weight)

No single exercise, nor type of exercise-session has a lock on promoting weight-loss. Magazine articles and faddish fitness equipment articles do a good job in hoodwinking and confusing the public.

Bottom line - the systematic and repeated application of alternate forms and intensities of exercise that promote the diverse development of all types of muscle fibers and all metabolic pathways responsible for expending calories - which ultimately results in weight loss.

With respect to the context of long term weight loss resulting from particular cycling styles - again, its not that one method is better or worse - the best answer understands the need to build or maintain both strength and stamina - not one or the other......

Damn, this sure was a good answer..... (15 kcals used)



Best reply I have read in months.

+1

+2

You get a gold star:thumb: